These orders are part of a global settlement resolving the FTC's lawsuit and related actions brought by county and city prosecutors in California. Under the settlements, AB Energizer marketers and certain retailers collectively will pay over $2 million, of which over $1.4 million will be for consumer redress. The balance will go to the California prosecutors for costs and civil penalties. The FTC and California orders bar the defendants from making the challenged false advertising claims for the AB Energizer or any similar device, and contain other injunctive relief to prevent future deceptive advertising.

The stipulated final orders settle the Commission's court actions against the following defendants: Electronic Products Distribution, L.L.C. (EPD); AB Energizer Products, Inc. (EPI); Abflex USA, Inc.; AB Energizer, L.L.C.; Thomas C. Nelson; Martin Van Der Hoeven; Douglas Gravink; and Gary Hewitt. The defendants are based in Southern California, with most located in San Diego. An amended complaint filed with the stipulated orders adds Gravink and Hewitt to the FTC's original complaint.

The FTC recognizes the invaluable role of prosecutors from the City of San Diego and the California counties of Napa, Solano, and Sonoma in reaching a settlement that maximized the amount of redress available for AB Energizer purchasers.

The Commission filed a complaint in May 2002, in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California as part of the FTC's "Project ABSurd," which targeted false claims made by the marketers of widely advertised abdominal devices that use electronic muscle stimulation (EMS) technology. Specifically, the FTC complaint charged the AB Energizer defendants with falsely representing that the device:

(1) causes users to lose weight, inches, and fat;

(2) gives users well-defined abdominal muscles;

(3) is the equivalent of regular exercise such as sit-ups; and

(4) is safe for all users, without disclosing the potential risks associated with its use by some people.

The complaint also charged that the defendants failed to honor their 30-day money-back guarantee, and violated the FTC's Mail or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule (Mail Order Rule) by failing to ship their direct order products within the promised time.

In the amended complaint, the Commission added two new defendants to the complaint. According to the FTC, these defendants, Douglas Gravink and Gary Hewitt, were the owners and managers of corporate defendant EPI and participated in the challenged advertising campaign.

The FTC obtained two stipulated final orders: one with the "EPD defendants" who were associated with AB Energizer retail sales (EPD, Abflex USA, Inc., AB Energizer, L.L.C., Thomas C. Nelson, and Martin Van Der Hoeven); and the other with the "EPI defendants" associated with direct response sales (EPI and its principals, Douglas Gravink and Gary Hewitt).

The monetary relief order against the EPD defendants includes a $41.5 million judgment, based on retail sales of the AB Energizer, which has been largely suspended due to the EPD defendants' inability to pay. Under the order, EPD will pay $24,000 to the FTC. In separate agreements with the California prosecutors, defendants Van Der Hoeven and Nelson each will pay $40,000 to California in civil penalties.

The order against the EPI defendants provides for a $43.4 million judgment against EPI, based on direct response sales, which has been suspended. EPI is in chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. The order requires defendants Gravink and Hewitt jointly to pay $120,000 in redress to the FTC. In separate agreements with the California prosecutors, Gravink and Hewitt agreed to pay $100,000 to a redress account managed by the California prosecutors, with an additional $170,000 going toward civil penalties and costs.

The EPD and EPI orders contain "avalanche clauses" that would make a defendant liable for the full amount of the suspended judgment if the defendant is found to have misrepresented its financial condition.

These monies, combined with proceeds from settlements of separate California state actions against several AB Energizer retailers - including Wal-Mart, Walgreen's, and Target - for allegedly selling misbranded and unapproved products, will result in a total of over $1.4 million available for redress to AB Energizer purchasers.

The stipulated orders against the EPD and EPI defendants also contain injunctive relief to ensure the defendants do not make false or deceptive claims in the future. First, the orders permanently ban the defendants from claiming that the AB Energizer or any similar device: causes weight loss, inch loss, fat loss, muscle growth, or well-defined abs; is equivalent or superior to abdominal exercise; makes a material contribution to any system or program that produces such results; or is safe for all users. Second, the orders prohibit the defendants from misrepresenting these benefits for any other EMS device. The orders also require the defendants to warn consumers about health and safety risks associated with EMS devices in packaging and advertising for such devices.

Further, the orders prohibit the defendants from making unsubstantiated claims regarding the safety or efficacy of any product, service or program, and from misrepresenting test or research results for any product, service, or program.

Both orders also prohibit the defendants from misrepresenting the terms of their refund, cancellation, exchange, or repurchase policies, and from failing to honor cancellation and refund requests in a timely manner. The defendants are required to provide at least one reasonable way for consumers to get a timely refund, cancellation, exchange, or repurchase according to their policies. If the defendants choose to provide a customer service phone number to comply with this provision, they must ensure sufficient capacity so it is useful to consumers.

The EPD order also permanently bans Martin Van Der Hoeven and Ab Flex from engaging in, or assisting anyone else in, marketing any service, product, or program that claims to help users lose weight, fat, or inches. These two defendants are subject to a prior FTC order based on allegedly deceptive advertising for the Ab Flex exercise device.

Under the EPI order, Douglas Gravink must obtain a $150,000 letter of credit (similar to a performance bond) before marketing any product or program promoted for weight or inch loss. Gravink also is subject to a prior FTC order based on allegedly deceptive advertising. The EPI order also prohibits EPI, which is subject to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and liquidation proceeding, from selling its customer lists or otherwise providing customer information to others.

Finally, both orders contain standard compliance reporting, monitoring, and record keeping provisions to ensure the defendants comply with the terms of the orders.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the amended complaint and to accept the stipulated final orders was 5-0. The orders were filed on April 22, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California and require the Court's approval.

Copies of the amended complaint and stipulated final orders are available from the FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take complaints), or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. AB Energizer purchasers who want more information should call 1-800-705-0589.

ALLIANZ LIFE: CA Woman Files Racketeering Suit V. Firm, Agents--------------------------------------------------------------Betty Reichenbach, an Escondido resident filed a class action lawsuit in Federal District Court in San Diego, alleging that a Minneapolis life insurance company, a San Francisco marketer of annuities and long-term care insurance and a San Diego insurance sales company are racketeers who conspired to defraud the elderly, The North County Times reports.

The suit is the second by a North County plaintiff to name Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America as a defendant in an elder fraud claim. In her complaint, Ms. Reichenbach claims that she resisted overtures from Fidelity Estate Group until a Fidelity representative told her that "changes in the law" required a legal review of her living trust. She agreed to the review in 1999, but was instead pressured to buy an annuity for her retirement account even though the annuity contained a provision that would penalize her for withdrawing cash. The complaint further states that due to her age, 75, IRS rules required that she withdraw money from the account every year.

Robert Phillips, Allianz's California attorney told the Times, "We're very puzzled by this complaint. It's particularly interesting because Betty Reichenbach, according to our records, never purchased one of our annuities, she never submitted an application, and we've never received any money from her."

According to Ron Marron, Reichenbach's San Diego lawyer, that makes sense. He explained to the Times, "She signed over some money to them, then she canceled the purchase," adding that one of the goals of the suit is to seek an injunction to prevent the defendants from using the same sales tactics on others.

Legacy Marketing Group of San Francisco, another defendant named in the suit, describes itself as doing business through wholesalers and a network of 22,000 independent agents. Legacy's Web site lists several insurance companies as suppliers of the insurance products it markets, however Allianz is not one of the companies listed. According to Mr. Phillips, Legacy has not been a contract marketing representative authorized to sell the Minneapolis Company's annuity products since 1992.

Fidelity Estate Group, the third defendant, has an office in San Diego's Mission Valley. The company's Web site describes insurance products such as indexed annuities and offers to show clients how to shelter their assets while qualifying for Medi-Cal long-term care assistance. It also prominently offers living trusts prepared by an affiliated attorney.

Mr. Philips reiterated to the Times, "The allegation that we train our agents to sell our products this way is just wrong. Allianz does not permit trust mills to sell its products. In the last 15 months, every sales agent in California who represents Allianz products has received two notices telling them that we do not approve of trust mills."

ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Judge Gives Preliminary Approval To $65M Deal--------------------------------------------------------------A New York federal judge gave preliminary approval to the proposed $65 million settlement by Arthur Andersen to resolve a shareholder lawsuit stemming from its audit of WorldCom, which filed for the biggest bankruptcy in history in 2002, thus ending a broad securities class action lawsuit brought by former WorldCom investors, The Guardian Unlimited reports.

As reported in previous articles of the Class Action Reporter, before the trial began, the last of 16 underwriter defendants involved in the case settled along with 12 former WorldCom directors. Those settlements totaled more than $6 billion, a record in the securities class action setting. Thus with those settlement, Arthur Andersen was left as the sole defendant, which had not opted to settle. The firm denied wrongdoing in the latest settlement, which interrupted a five-week-long trial and has maintained that WorldCom duped it.

As previously reported in the April 27, 2005 edition of the Class Action Reporter, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote scheduled a preliminary approval hearing on the settlement and banned each side from discussing its details publicly.

The securities case, which is being led by New York state Comptroller Alan Hevesi, who is acting as trustee of the state employees' retirement system, alleges that Arthur Andersen, which at one time was one of the world's largest accounting firms, failed to uphold its duties to investors as WorldCom's former auditor. It was brought on behalf of all persons or organizations that purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of WorldCom during the period April 29, 1999 through June 25, 2002, inclusive. In its suit, the plaintiffs alleged that WorldCom's annual financial statements for 1999, 2000 and 2001 contained false statements and that Arthur Andersen issued its audit opinions with intent to deceive, manipulate or defraud.

Arthur Andersen though insisted through its lawyers that each of its audit opinions from 1999 through 2001 was generated in good faith and with no intent to deceive, manipulate or defraud.

WorldCom, which collapsed when the accounting fraud to inflate earnings and hide expenses was revealed, has since re-emerged as MCI Inc., based in Ashburn, Virginia.

ASHFORD.COM: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement---------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against Ashford.com, Inc., several of its officers and directors, and various underwriters of its initial public offering.

Since July 11, 2001, several stockholder class action complaints have been filed on behalf of purchasers of Ashford.com common stock during various periods beginning on September 22, 1999, the date of the Company's initial public offering. The plaintiffs allege that the Company's prospectus, included in the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, certain fees and commissions collected by the underwriters or arrangements designed to inflate the price of the common stock. The plaintiffs further allege that because of these purchases, the Company's post-initial public offering stock price was artificially inflated. As a result of the alleged omissions in the prospectus and the purported inflation of the stock price, the plaintiffs claim violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaints have been consolidated into a single action, and the consolidated cases against the Company have been consolidated with similarly consolidated cases filed against 308 other issuer defendants for the purposes of pretrial proceedings. The claims against Ashford.com's officers and directors were dismissed in exchange for tolling agreements which permit the refilling of claims against officers and directors at a later date. A motion to dismiss filed on behalf of all issuer defendants, including the Company, was denied in all aspects relevant to the Company on February 19, 2003. The Company and its insurers have entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding terms for settlement of this suit. Under the settlement, plaintiffs' claims against Ashford.com and other issuers will be dismissed in exchange for certain consideration from the issuers' insurers and for the issuers' assignment to plaintiffs of certain potential claims against the underwriters of the relevant initial public offerings. Formal documentation of the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of understanding is complete and the Judge presiding over this matter has preliminarily approved the settlement.

The suit is styled "In Re Ashford.com, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation," filed in relation to "IN re IPO Securities Litigation, 21-MC-92 (Sas)," in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

AVERY DENNISON: Continues To Face PA Suit V. UPM-MACtac Merger--------------------------------------------------------------Avery Dennison Corporation continues to face a purported class action filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, related to the proposed merger of UPM-Kymmene (UPM) and the Morgan Adhesives (MACtac) division of Bemis Co., Inc. (Bemis).

The Department of Justice filed a complaint, on the basis of its belief that in certain aspects of the label stock industry "the competitors have sought to coordinate rather than compete." On April 24, 2003, Sentry Business Products, Inc. filed a purported class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company, UPM, Bemis and certain of their subsidiaries seeking treble damages and other relief for alleged unlawful competitive practices, essentially repeating the underlying allegations of the DOJ Merger Complaint. Ten similar complaints were filed in various federal district courts.

In November 2003, the cases were transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and consolidated for pretrial purposes. On January 21, 2004, plaintiff Pamco Tape & Label voluntarily dismissed its complaint, leaving a total of ten named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on February 16, 2004, which the Company answered on March 31, 2004. On April 14, 2004, the court separated the proceedings as to class certification and merits discovery, and limited the initial phase of discovery to the issue of the appropriateness of class certification.

On May 6, 2003, Sekuk Global Enterprises filed a purported stockholder class action seeking damages and other relief for alleged disclosure violations pertaining to alleged unlawful competitive practices. Subsequently, another similar action was filed in the same court. On September 24, 2003, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead and liaison counsel and ordered the two actions consolidated as the "In Re Avery Dennison Corporation Securities Litigation."

Pursuant to court order and the parties' stipulation, plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint in mid-February 2004. The court approved a briefing schedule for defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, with a contemplated hearing date in June 2004. In January 2004, the parties stipulated to stay the consolidated action, including the proposed briefing schedule, pending the outcome of the government investigation of alleged anticompetitive conduct by the Company. The court has approved the parties' stipulation to stay the consolidated actions and scheduled the next status conference for March 28, 2005. There has been no discovery and no trial date has been set.

AVERY DENNISON: Faces Label Antitrust Lawsuits in Various Courts----------------------------------------------------------------Avery Dennison faces several class actions filed on behalf of indirect purchasers of label stock in various state courts. The suits also name as defendants, UPM-Kymmene and UPM's subsidiary Raflatac.

On May 21, 2003, The Harman Press filed in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, California, a purported class action on behalf of indirect purchasers of label stock, seeking treble damages and other relief for alleged unlawful competitive practices. Three similar complaints were filed in various California courts. In November 2003, on petition from the parties, the California Judicial Council ordered the cases be coordinated for pretrial purposes. The cases were assigned to a coordination trial judge in the Superior Court for San Francisco County on March 30, 2004.

A further similar complaint was filed in the Superior Court for Maricopa County, Arizona on November 6, 2003. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Arizona complaint without prejudice on October 4, 2004.

On January 21, 2005, American International Distribution Corporation filed a purported class action on behalf of indirect purchasers in the Superior Court for Chittenden County, Vermont. Similar actions were filed by Webtego on February 16, 2005, in the Court of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and by D.R. Ward Construction Co. on February 17, 2005, in the Superior Court for Maricopa County, Arizona. On February 17, 2005, Judy Benson filed a purported multi-state class action on behalf of indirect purchasers in the Circuit Court for Cocke County, Tennessee.

According to Douglas Nill, a Minneapolis attorney who represented U.S. farmers in the suit, barring any successful appeal by BASF in the future, Minnesota farmers stand to collect about a quarter of that money. Mr. Nill told the Tribune that the period for the claimed damages to the farmers was 1992 to 1996, and it appears to him that the company is using various court challenges as a way to delay paying the jury verdict. "Farmers are dying, retiring and losing their ability to prove a claim," he quips.

The case began eight years ago in Norman County, Minnesota, when farmers from several states alleged that BASF charged sugar beet farmers higher prices for the same herbicide than it charged soybean farmers. Court documents revealed that the company sold the same herbicide under two different names, Poast and Poast Plus. In December 2001, a jury in Ada, Minnesota, found that BASF committed consumer fraud in the sale of Poast herbicide in all 50 states.

In October BASF asked Norman County Judge Michael Kraker to transfer the judgment to an account it opened in New York City reasoning that they wanted any ownership or distribution disputes involving the money to fall under the jurisdiction of courts in Manhattan. However, Judge Kraker called that motion "an abuse of process" and "interference with farmers' property." The dispute went all the way to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which found that BASF had no legal standing to challenge the distribution plan for money to be paid to farmers.

BUSINESS OBJECTS: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit----------------------------------------------------------------Business Objects S.A. asked the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against it and certain of its current and former officers and directors.

Between June 2 and July 1, 2004, four purported class action complaints were filed, alleging violations of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of investors in the Company's American Depositary Shares (ADSs) who purchased ADSs between April 23, 2003 and May 5, 2004.

A consolidated amended complaint has been filed. The complaints generally alleged that, during that Class Period, the Company and the individual defendants made false or misleading statements in press releases and SEC filings regarding, among other things, the Company's acquisition of Crystal Decisions, its Enterprise 6 product and its forecasts and financial results for the three months ended March 31, 2004.

CALIFORNIA: City Cleared Over Lineup Report in "Riders" Case ------------------------------------------------------------City officials did not attempt to mislead a federal judge by telling him that Mayor Jerry Brown had attended police lineups to demonstrate his commitment to the reforms mandated by the settlement in the "Riders" case, according to a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Thelton Henderson, The Inside Bay Area reports.

In his April 12 ruling, the judge called the incorrect statement "an inadvertent error and not an affirmative attempt to mislead this court." With that ruling, Judge Henderson declined to penalize the city or its attorney, Greg Fox of Bertrand, Fox and Elliot in San Francisco saying that he has no reason to doubt Mr. Fox's "ethics or competence" and is certain the problem will not recur. Earlier, Mr. Fox told the judge that he was responsible for the error, having misunderstood a report compiled by the Oakland Police Department's command staff about efforts to comply with the settlement agreement.

In February, Judge Henderson harshly criticized the city for failing to comply with terms of the agreement that settled the class action lawsuit alleging a group of officers dubbed the "Riders" beat and framed 119 Oaklanders.

Mayor Brown told The Inside Bay Area that he is pleased the issue has been resolved and vowed to continue working to implement the settlement agreement.

Court documents show that three officers are awaiting a jury verdict in Alameda County Superior Court on charges stemming from that scandal.

Under the settlement, the city agreed to reform the department and pay the plaintiffs $10.9 million, with all but about $2 million coming from the city's insurance companies.

CANADA: Firm Allowed To Proceed With Payday Loan Interest Suit--------------------------------------------------------------A Calgary law firm has been given the go-signal to proceed with a class action against the payday loan industry in Canada alleging criminal interest rates, The Winnipeg Sun reports.

According to Bill McNally, of the firm McNally Cuming Raymaker, his lawsuit, if successful, will wipe out payday lenders. Mr. McNally told The Winnipeg Sun that Justice Sal LoVecchio, in a written ruling, certified the claim by his client, Jacob Ayrton, as a class-action suit, which is the first such case in Alberta history. As a result, Mr. Ayrton can proceed as a representative plaintiff for the customers of several companies from which he received loans, Mr. McNally adds.

Mr. Ayrton's lawsuit alleges the companies and the corporate directors charge customers illegal interest rates on their short-term loans. In his suit, Mr. Ayrton states that he borrowed money from Payroll Loan and Hornby Loan Broker in 2003 and last year. Later, he adds, those companies then arranged for lenders PRL Financing or Thurlow Capital to provide the cash.

In one instance, according to the suit, Mr. Ayrton borrowed $500 for a two-week period and was charged interest of 1.13% per week, or 59% annually. But he was also required to pay brokerage fees of $95, bringing his total payment at the end of the two weeks to $606.32.

Mr. McNally told The Winnipeg Sun that an actuarial hired by his firm calculated the annual rate of all the extra money Mr. Ayrton paid. He found out that the interest in one loan for 14 days was 15,141%. Under Canadian law, lenders are prohibited by law from charging annual rates in excess of 60% and can face up to five years in prison if convicted of charging criminal interest rates, he pointed out. In addition, Mr. McNally's actuarial said to stay under that percentage on a $500 loan over 14 days, the lender could not charge more than $9.09 in interest. Mr. McNally explained to The Winnipeg Sun that the case would focus on brokerage fees charged to individuals who borrow cash to be paid back when they receive their next paycheck.

CENTURY BUSINESS: Enters Settlement For Heritage Bond Litigation----------------------------------------------------------------Century Business Service, Inc. entered into settlements to resolve the Heritage Bond Litigation, comprised of multiple lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California arising from losses sustained by investors in numerous municipal bond offerings between December 1996 and March 1999.

In those lawsuits, plaintiffs alleged numerous claims, including mismanagement and misappropriation of funds from the bond offerings, against unrelated parties, including the HeritageEntities and the trustee, U.S. Trust Corporation.

The Betker Action, designated "CV 02-5752-DT (RCx)," includes claims against two entities acquired by the Company, ValuationCounselors Group, Inc. ("VC") and Zelenkofske, Axelrod & Co., Ltd. ("ZA"), for negligent misrepresentation and negligence, and for joint and several liability under California Corporations Code sec. 25504.2 (against VC only). In the Consolidated Class Action, designated "02-ML-1475-DT (RCx)," the Court permitted plaintiffs to substitute CBIZ Valuation Group, Inc. ("CBIZ-VC") in place of VC, and CBIZ Accounting, Tax & Advisory, Inc. ("CBIZ-ZA") in place of ZA, as defendants. In addition, plaintiffs named Century Business Services, Inc. ("CBIZ") itself as a defendant. CBIZ-VC and CBIZ-ZA are subsidiaries of CBIZ.

That complaint includes claims against CBIZ, CBIZ-VC and CBIZ-ZA for negligence, and claims against CBIZ-VC and CBIZ-ZA for conspiracy to commit fraud, negligent misrepresentation and intentional misrepresentation. These claims have been pending since 2001 and relate to the provision of valuation and feasibility study services from 1996 through 1999.

Management believes that the settlements are fair, reasonable and adequate, and in the best interests of all parties concerned. The settlement of the Consolidated Class Action has been preliminarily approved by the Court, which also entered an order approving notice to the Class. The Class Settlement is conditioned upon, among other things, standard class action opt-out procedures, objections by litigants, the Court's entry of a bar order and final judicial approval of the settlement by the Court after notice to the class. The settlement of the Betker Action has been approved by the Court and is subject to, among other things, the final entry of a bar order. Additional proceedings may be necessary as a consequence of any opt-out or objection that may occur. The resolution of these matters did not have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of the Company.

CERNER CORPORATION: Appeals Court Mulls Appeal of Suit Dismissal----------------------------------------------------------------The United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the consolidated securities class action filed against Cerner Corporation and five of its officers.

In April 2003, several class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. All of these lawsuits were filed after a decline in the Company's stock price following the Company's announcement on April 3, 2003 that the Company would not meet revenue and earnings estimates for the first quarter of 2003.

On August 20, 2003, the Court ordered that all of the lawsuits be consolidated under Case No. 03-CV-00296-DW and appointed Phil Crabtree as Lead Plaintiff. On December 1, 2003, the LeadPlaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. In general, the consolidated complaint alleges that, during a class period commencing as of July 17, 2002 and ending April 2, 2003, the Company and individually named defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose certain factors, which they allege impacted the Company's business and anticipated revenue and earnings, all allegedly in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

On June 16, 2004 the Court granted the Company's and the individual defendants' Motion to Dismiss and ordered the Consolidated Class Action Complaint dismissed with prejudice against re-filing. On June 30, 2004, the Lead Plaintiff appealed the District Court's dismissal of the action to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The parties filed their appellate briefs and the issues were argued before the Eighth Circuit on January 13, 2005. The matter has been submitted to the Eighth Circuit for decision but the Company does not know when the Court of Appeals will deliver a ruling.

CHELSEA PROPERTY: NJ Court OKs Settlement of Lawsuit V. Merger--------------------------------------------------------------The Court of Chancery in Essex County, New Jersey approved the settlement of a class action filed against Chelsea Property Group, Inc., seeking to enjoin the Company's October 2004 merger with Simon Property Group, Inc., making the Company a private real estate investment trust (REIT). The suit also names as defendants each of the members of the Company's board of directors.

The complaint alleged that the defendants violated fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, candor and independence owed to the public stockholders of the Company. The plaintiff sought, among other things, class action certification, a declaration that the Merger Agreement is unenforceable and a permanent injunction against the defendants from proceeding with or closing the Merger.

A settlement hearing was held on October 5, 2004 at which the court approved a settlement of the case involving certain additional disclosure and the payment by the Company of costsof approximately $0.9 million to the plaintiff's attorneys.

CINGULAR WIRELESS: City Files Suit to Foil Cutbacks on Payments---------------------------------------------------------------Krislov & Associates, Ltd., the law firm representing the City of Parma, Ohio in a suit against Cingular Wireless asserted that the Company's 2004 acquisition of AT&T Wireless produced the nation's largest wireless network, but also resulted in overlapping wireless antenna site coverage.

The Company operates antenna sites under long-term leases of up to 30 years. Seeking to cut its monthly rent payments on these sites, the Company has threatened to terminate leases with an estimated 15,000 owners throughout the country, including cities, local governments and volunteer organizations, unless they agree to rent reductions of as much as 50%, even though the agreements do not permit termination for mere convenience or overlap.

The City of Parma has filed a lawsuit for itself and other antenna site owners nationwide, seeking to enforce their right to continue receiving rent at the agreed price.

Parma Law Director Tim Dobeck was quoted: "At a time when state and local governments are pushed and squeezed from all sides, it is both baffling and sad to see a huge national corporation renounce its contractual obligations to these governments and attempt to cut off one of their vital revenue streams."

Attorney Clint Krislov was quoted: "If Cingular needs to cut costs to make the merger profitable, it should find legitimate ways to do that, rather than by shortchanging local governments and other site owners across the country of their agreed rents."

The case is entitled, City of Parma, Ohio, v. Cingular Wireless LLC, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, No. CV05560750, and is assigned to Judge Lillian J. Greene. The plaintiffs a represented by the law firm of Krislov & Associates, Ltd., Phone: (312) 606-0500.

CREDIT SUISSE: Asks NY Court To Certify IPO Antitrust Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to grant class certification to the consolidated issuer and purchaser securities lawsuits filed against Credit Suisse First Boston LLC (CSFB LLC), Donald Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation (DLJSC) and other brokerage firms.

Since November 1998, several lawsuits have been filed, alleging that the defendant broker-dealers conspired to fix the "fee" paid for underwriting certain IPO securities by setting the underwriters' fee or "spread" at 7%, in violation of the federal antitrust laws. The lawsuits purport to be class actions brought on behalf of classes of persons and entities that purchased and issued securities in those initial public offerings (IPOs). In February 1999, the district court consolidated the various cases in a single litigation, captioned "In re Public Offering Fee Antitrust Litigation." On April 29, 1999, the defendant underwriters filed a motion to dismiss the complaint as a matter of law.

Meanwhile, beginning in August 2000, several other complaints were filed on behalf of issuers of stock in IPOs containing the same allegations of an industry-wide conspiracy to fix IPO underwriting fees. By order, dated April 10, 2001, the district court consolidated the issuer complaints.

On February 14, 2001, the district court dismissed the purchaser plaintiffs' claims on the ground that those plaintiffs lacked legal standing to assert antitrust claims. By order, dated December 13, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the district court's decision and remanded the action to the district court for consideration of the additional grounds for dismissal asserted in the motion to dismiss. On July 6, 2001, the issuer plaintiffs filed a consolidated issuer complaint, naming numerous defendants, including CSFB LLC and Credit Suisse First Boston, Inc., under the caption "In re Issuer Plaintiff Initial Public Offering Fee Antitrust Litigation." On September 28, 2001, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated issuer complaint. On September 25, 2002, the district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and defendants sought leave to file an interlocutory appeal of that decision. On January 17, 2003, the district court issued an order deferring a ruling on the defendants' motion until the district court reached a decision, upon remand, of the motion to dismiss the consolidated purchaser complaint.

On March 26, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of implied immunity in both the consolidated issuer and consolidated purchaser cases. The district court denied that motion in an order, dated June 26, 2003. In September 2004, the plaintiffs in both the consolidated issuer and consolidated purchaser cases filed motions for class certification.

The purchaser litigation is styled "IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING ANTITRUST LITIGATION, case no. 1:01-cv-02014-WHP," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge William H. Pauley III. Representing the plaintiffs is Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, L.L.P., 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 545-4600.

CREDIT SUISSE: Appeals Certification of NY Securities Fraud Suit----------------------------------------------------------------Credit Suisse First Boston LLC, an affiliate and other investment banks appealed the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York's order granting class certification to the consolidated securities lawsuit filed against them and other companies, concerning IPO allocation practices.

On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed consolidated amended complaints alleging various violations of the federal securities laws resulting from alleged material omissions and misstatements in registration statements and prospectuses for the IPOs and, in some cases, follow-on offerings, and with respect to transactions in the aftermarket for those offerings. The complaints contain allegations that the registration statements and prospectuses either omitted or misrepresented material information about commissions paid to investment banks and aftermarket transactions by certain customers that received allocations of shares in the IPOs. The complaints also allege that misleading analyst reports were issued to support the issuers' allegedly manipulated stock price and that such reports failed to disclose the alleged allocation practices or that analysts were allegedly subject to conflicts of interest.

On July 1, 2002, CSFB LLC, an affiliate and other defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated class action complaints. On February 19, 2003, the district court denied the motion as to CSFB LLC, an affiliate and the other defendant investment banks, as well as with respect to certain issuer and individual defendants. On September 2, 2003, the plaintiffs filed an omnibus motion for class certification in all of these actions. By agreement among the parties and the district court, six cases were selected as focus cases for class certification purposes. The underwriter defendants opposed class certification in the six focus cases on February 24, 2004.

On October 13, 2004, the district court issued an order granting in substantial part plaintiffs' motion for class certification in each of the six focus cases. The district court stated that the order "is intended to provide strong guidance, if not dispositive effect, to all parties when considering class certification in the remaining actions." On October 27, 2004, the underwriter defendants in the six focus cases filed a petition for review of the class certification order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. That petition remains pending and discovery is proceeding in the case.

Separately, in June 2003, the plaintiffs announced a proposed settlement of their claims against the issuer defendants and the issuers' officers and directors. In June 2004, the plaintiffs and settling issuer and individual defendants moved for preliminary approval of the settlement. In an order, dated February 15, 2005, the district court preliminarily approved the settlement.

The litigation is styled "IN re IPO Securities Litigation, 21-MC-92 (Sas)," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

CREDIT SUISSE: Appeal of NY IPO Lawsuit Dismissal Still Pending---------------------------------------------------------------The United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of a consolidated class action filed against Credit Suisse First Boston LLC (CSFB LLC) and several other investment banks, alleging violations of the federal and state antitrust laws in connection with alleged practices in allocation of shares in initial public offerings (IPOs) in which such investment banks were a lead or co-managing underwriter.

Since March 2001, CSFB LLC and several other investment banks have been named as defendants in a number of putative class actions, which were later consolidated. The amended complaint alleges that the underwriter defendants have engaged in an illegal antitrust conspiracy to require customers, in exchange for IPO allocations, to pay non-competitively determined commissions on transactions in other securities, to purchase an issuer's shares in follow-on offerings, and to commit to purchase other less desirable securities. The complaint also alleges that the underwriter defendants conspired to require customers, in exchange for IPO allocations, to agree to make aftermarket purchases of the IPO securities at a price higher than the offering price, as a precondition to receiving an allocation. These alleged "tie-in" arrangements are further alleged to have artificially inflated the market price for the securities.

On May 24, 2002, CSFB LLC and the other defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 3, 2003, the district court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the action with prejudice as to all defendants. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Oral argument on that appeal was held on December 13, 2004, and a decision remains pending.

CREDIT SUISSE: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit----------------------------------------------------------------Credit Suisse First Boston, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss a class action filed against it on behalf of a putative class of issuers in initial public offerings (IPOs) for which its affiliate, Donald Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation (DLJSC), acted as underwriter.

The complaint alleges that the issuers' IPOs were underpriced, and that DLJSC allocated the underpriced IPO stock to certain of its favored clients and subsequently shared in portions of the profits of such favored clients pursuant to side agreements or understandings. This purported conduct is alleged to have been in breach of the underwriting agreements between DLJSC and those issuers.

On September 12, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. By order dated March 9, 2004, the district court denied the motion to dismiss as to three of plaintiff's claims, but granted the motion as to plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment, dismissing that claim. On February 28, 2005, the Company served plaintiff with a summary judgment motion seeking to dismiss the plaintiff's remaining claims in the complaint.

On April 8, 2002, CSFB LLC and its affiliates and certain other investment banks were named as defendants along with, among others, Enron, Enron executives and directors, and external law and accounting firms in a putative class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, styled "Newby, et al. v. Enron, et al." The Newby action was filed by purchasers of Enron securities and alleges violations of the federal securities laws. A motion by CSFB LLC and its affiliates to dismiss the Newby complaint was denied in December 2002, and CSFB LLC and its affiliates answered the complaint, denying all liability. On May 14, 2003, the lead plaintiff in the Newby suit filed an amended complaint that, among other things, named as defendants additional CSFB entities, expanded the putative class to include purchasers of certain Enron-related securities, and alleged additional violations of the federal securities laws. On March 31, 2004, CSFB LLC and its affiliates' motion to dismiss the new claims and new entities asserted in the amended complaint was granted as to certain claims that were based on the Securities Act of 1933, but denied in all other respects. On May 28, 2003, the lead plaintiff filed an amended motion for class certification of a more broadly defined class based on the amended complaint. On April 30, 2004, CSFB LLC and its affiliates answered the amended complaint, denying all liability. Lead plaintiff's motion for class certification in Newby is pending.

Several other actions filed against CSFB LLC and its affiliates and other parties have been consolidated or coordinated with the Newby action and stayed as to the filing of amended or responsive pleadings pending the district court's decision on class certification in Newby. Similarly consolidated or coordinated with Newby and stayed have been several actions against Arthur Andersen, LLP, in which Andersen brought claims for contribution against CSFB LLC and its affiliates and other parties as third-party defendants.

Additional Enron-related actions have been filed in various state courts against CSFB LLC and its affiliates and other parties, including:

(1) a complaint by two investment funds that purchased certain Enron-related securities alleging insider trading and other violations of California law;

(2) a complaint by investment funds or fund owners that purchased senior secured notes issued by Osprey Trust and Osprey Trust I alleging violations of California law and fraud, deceit and negligent misrepresentation;

(3) an action by AUSA Life Insurance Company, Inc. and eleven other insurance company plaintiffs alleging violations of state securities laws, common law fraud and civil conspiracy in connection with securities offerings by certain Enron-related entities; and

In addition, several new actions were filed in November 2004, against CSFB LLC and its affiliates and other parties in both federal and state court, including:

(i) a complaint in Texas federal court brought by purchasers of Enron debt securities alleging that CSFB LLC and its affiliates and certain other investment banks engaged in negligence, fraud, civil conspiracy, and violations of the Texas Securities Act in connection with an Enron debt securities offering;

(ii) complaints in Washington and Nevada federal court brought by electrical utility companies alleging that defendants aided and abetted fraud, engaged in civil conspiracy and misrepresentation by participating in schemes to misrepresent the financial condition of Enron, which in turn permitted Enron to enter into electricity contracts with the plaintiffs and manipulate prices in the electricity market; and

(iii) a complaint in Texas state court brought by various insurers alleging that defendants engaged in civil conspiracy and fraud in violation of the Texas Business and Commerce Code and the Texas Securities Act.

These cases are in the process of being consolidated or coordinated with the Newby action.

On July 16, 2004, CSFB LLC and its affiliates and certain other investment banks were also sued in Texas state court by a sub-group of the limited partners that had invested in LJM2 Co-Investment, L.P., or LJM2, a now bankrupt limited partnership formed by Enron's former Chief Financial Officer, Andrew Fastow. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties, were unjustly enriched, engaged in a civil conspiracy, aided and abetted a violation of the Texas Securities Act, aided and abetted fraud, and aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty.

CROSSROADS SYSTEMS: TX Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement--------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against Crossroads Systems, Inc. and several of its officers and directors, styled "In re Crossroads Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. A-00-CA-457-JN."

The Company and several of its officers and directors were named as defendants in several class action lawsuits, filed on behalf purchasers of the Company's common stock during various periods ranging from January 25, 2000 through August 24, 2000. These suits were later consolidated.

On February 24, 2003, the Court entered a final judgment in the defendants' favor. Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On April 14, 2004, the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion, which affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court's ruling. The remaining claims were remanded to the district court. On May 12, 2004, the Fifth Circuit denied plaintiff's request for panel rehearing.

In December 2004, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle this litigation. The shareholder class will receive a total payment of $4.35 million. Of that amount, the Company's directors-and-officers insurance carriers agreed to pay $3.35 million and the Company agreed to pay $1.0 million. On February 14, 2005, the Court entered into an order preliminarily approving the settlement, certifying the class for settlement purposes and providing for notice. The Court has set a hearing on the settlement on July 11, 2005.

The suit is styled "In re Crossroads Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. A-00-CA-457-JN," filed in the United States District Court, Western District of Texas (Austin) under Judge James R. Nowlin. Representing the plaintiffs are:

DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Reaches $50 Mil Settlement For Adelphia Case---------------------------------------------------------------The country's third-largest accounting firm, Deloitte & Touche agreed to pay $50 million to settle charges that it should have detected the fraudulent bookkeeping at Adelphia Communications, the cable television company that subsequently filed for bankruptcy, The New York Times reports.

Coming just a day after the Rigas family, which founded Adelphia, settled a federal fraud case by agreeing to pay $715 million to investors who lost money when the company collapsed, the Deloitte's settlement, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission, is the largest ever by an accounting firm and includes a record penalty of $25 million.

In an administrative order, the S.E.C. charged Deloitte with conducting "a critically flawed audit" that failed to detect "massive fraud perpetrated by Adelphia and certain members of the Rigas family." The S.E.C. stated that among other abuses, Adelphia excluded $1.6 billion in debt from its balance sheet and overstated its stockholders' equity by $375 million. In its order, the S.E.C. stated, "The Deloitte engagement team's failure to object to these particular misstatements permitted Adelphia to engage in certain accounting practices that departed from generally accepted accounting principles. Accordingly, Deloitte caused Adelphia's violations."

In addition to the order, the commission also filed a complaint in federal district court arguing that Deloitte failed to use auditing procedures designed to detect illegal practices like Adelphia's.

In a telephone interview, Mark K. Schonfeld, director of the S.E.C.'s northeast regional office, told The New York Times, "Auditors are the front line of oversight of public companies' financial statements. When they fail to do their job, the result can be tragic for investors. He also added, "The record settlement in this case sends the message that we will hold auditors accountable for their failures."

The S.E.C revealed that Deloitte settled both the agency's order and court action for $25 million each without admitting or denying the charges. The federal agency also revealed that both amounts would be paid into a fund to compensate victims of Adelphia's fraud.

In a press statement regarding the settlement, the firm said, "Deloitte & Touche L.L.P. believes that the settlements are in the best interests of its people, clients and the organization." It also said the enforcement cases were its first since being formed through a merger in 1989, and it cited plans to improve its audit procedures and training.

Deloitte's settlement is the latest in a series of hefty settlements reached in recent weeks by accounting firms facing class action lawsuits and regulatory actions over their auditing of companies where accounting fraud was found.

ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Reached Settlement For RI Securities Lawsuit----------------------------------------------------------------Enterasys Networks, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated securities class action filed against it and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, styled "In re Cabletron Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation (C.A. No. 97-542-JD (N.H.); No. 99-408-S (R.I.))."

Between October 24, 1997 and March 2, 1998, nine shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. By order dated March 3, 1998, these lawsuits, which are similar in material respects, were consolidated into one class action lawsuit, and referred to the District of Rhode Island. The complaint alleges that the Company and several of its officers and directors disseminated materially false and misleading information about its operations and acted in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act andRule 10b-5 thereunder during the period between March 3, 1997 and December 2, 1997, and that certain officers and directors profited from the dissemination of such misleading information by selling shares of the Company's common stock during this period. The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought on behalf of the class.

In February 2005, the Company entered into an agreement in principle to settle this litigation which is subject to approval by the Court and does not reflect any admission of wrongdoing. If finally approved, the settlement would result in the dismissal and release of all claims and, under the financial terms of the settlement, the Company would pay $10.5 million in cash in addition to ongoing defense costs of approximately $1.1 million in connection with the litigation, the majority of which will be offset by approximately $11.0 million in cash proceeds from certain of the Company's insurers.

In October 2004, the suit was filed, on behalf of a class of persons who acquired the stock of the Company during the period from February 22, 2002 through July 8, 2004. In January 2005, the Company was officially served and has retained legal counselto defend it and assert all available defenses. In February 2005, plaintiff's counsel filed a First Amended Complaint, alleging various violations of the federal securities laws, generally asserting the same claims involving Philip Gurian, Barry Alter, and the Company's failure to disclose their various securities violations including, without limitation, allegations of fraud. The First Amended Complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and declaratory relief.

ITXC CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement---------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against ITXC Corporation and certain of its former officers and directors.

Several purported shareholder class action lawsuits were initially commenced in 2001, alleging, among other things, that, in connection with the Company's public offerings of securities, its prospectus did not disclose certain alleged practices involving its underwriters and their customers. These actions seek compensatory and other damages, and costs and expenses associated with the litigation. No discovery has taken place with respect to the Company and the other issuer defendants.

The Company is one of hundreds of companies named in substantially identical lawsuits. All of these cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes before Judge Scheindlin in the Southern District of New York, who refused to dismiss the cases in an opinion issued in February 2003. All of the individual defendants who had been named as defendants in the Company's case have now been dismissed from the proceeding without prejudice, pursuant to a stipulation with the plaintiffs. Neither the individual defendants nor the Company nor its insurers paid any consideration for these dismissals.

The issuer defendants, their insurance carriers and the plaintiffs have negotiated a settlement pursuant to which the insurance carriers would fund any monetary consideration, and it is anticipated that this proposed settlement will be submitted to the Court for approval in the near future. If approved by the court, under the terms of the proposed settlement, the Company would be dismissed from the litigation with prejudice and should neither have future liability to plaintiffs nor any significant expenses in connection with the litigation, except for a limited obligation to cooperate in discovery in the plaintiffs' continuing cases against the underwriters.

The suit is styled "In Re ITXC Corporation Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation," filed in relation to "IN re IPO Securities Litigation, 21-MC-92 (Sas)," in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

In its suit, Brookfield-based Shorewest is accusing the newspaper of deliberately overstating circulation since 1996 and using the "artificially inflated rates to surreptitiously overcharge" the home-seller for advertising. The suit alleges that Journal Sentinel Inc. systematically used various policies to inflate circulation. Specifically, according to the suit, Journal Sentinel counted as circulation papers that were:

(1) Distributed free to homes, businesses, on the street and at large gatherings such as Summerfest, parades and sporting events.

(2) Thrown into Dumpsters without ever having been distributed.

(3) Donated to schools.

(4) Distributed to apartment tenants as part of a scheme in which the subscription cost was included in the rent, then kicked back to the apartment complex manager.

The suit further alleges that after circulation scandals surfaced at such papers as the Chicago Sun-Times, Newsday and The Dallas Morning News, Journal Sentinel launched a plan "to conceal its past misrepresentation of circulation rates." It contends that the company is seeking "to cover up its own misconduct . . . recently terminated two employees and demoted another as a result of their participation in the pervasive scheme to overstate circulation rates."

Among the three law firms representing Shorewest is Media, Pennsylvania-based Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, which specializes in class actions.

Shorewest President Joseph A. Horning said in an interview that the lawsuit was based on information from current and former Journal Sentinel employees. He told The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "We have evidence, or evidence has been brought to us based on information, and that's how we formulated the complaint."

Additionally, the suit alleges that Journal Sentinel overstated circulation for the last nine years as it faced a stagnant market share and increasing competition from other media outlets. It further states that during the period the suit describes, the paper's Monday-through-Friday circulation declined from nearly 290,000 to about 240,000, according to figures reported to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, a non-profit organization that includes advertisers, and which governs and checks newspaper circulation, while the Sunday circulation during that period fell from about 462,000 to about 435,000.

NANOPHASE TECHNOLOGIES: IL Court OKs Additional Settlement Cost ---------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois approved an additional $4,628 in further settlement administration costs for the consolidated securities class action filed against Nanophase Technologies, Inc., several of its current and former officers and the underwriters of its initial public offering.

In 1998, Harbour Court LPI, a small stockholder of the Company, filed the suit, alleging that the defendants had violated the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making supposedly fraudulent material misstatements and omissions of fact in connection with soliciting consents to the Company's initial public offering from certain of its preferred stockholders. The supposed misrepresentations concerned purported mischaracterization of revenue that the Company received from its then-largest customer. The complaint further alleged that the suit should be maintained as a plaintiff class action on behalf of certain former preferred stockholders whose shares of preferred stock were converted into common stock in connection with the Company's initial public offering. The complaint sought relief including unquantified compensatory damages and attorneys' fees.

In September 2000, each defendant answered the complaint, denying all wrongdoing. Following certain discovery, the Company decided to avoid protracted litigation and resulting defense costs by agreeing to settle all claims against all defendants for $800,000, plus up to an additional $50,000 for the cost of settlement administration. The settlement did not admit liability by any party. The Court ordered final approval of the settlement in January 2002 and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. In January 2003, the Court approved interim payment to plaintiffs of $17,102 in settlement administration costs.

In January 2005, the Court approved an additional $4,628 in further settlement administration costs and determined that administration of the settlement had been completed. Because both the settlement and the settlement administration costs were funded by the Company's directors and officers liability insurance, neither the settlement nor the settlement administration costs payments have had a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of operations.

NANOPHASE TECHNOLOGIES: IL Court Orders Settlement Distribution---------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ordered the distribution of net settlement funds to the class members in the consolidated securities class action filed against Nanophase Technologies Corporation, Joseph Cross, its president and chief executive officer and certain of its officers.

In 2001, George Tatz, a purchaser of 200 shares of the Company's common stock, filed the suit, alleging that defendants violated the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making supposedly fraudulent material misstatements and omissions of fact in connection with the Company's public disclosures, including certain press releases, concerning its dealings with Celox, a British customer. The complaint further alleged that the action should be maintained as a plaintiff class action on behalf of certain buyers who purchased shares of the Company's common stock from April 5, 2001 through October 24, 2001. The complaint sought relief including unquantified compensatory damages and attorneys' fees.

Thereafter, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging that the Company and four of its officers, Joseph Cross, its chief executive officer, Daniel Bilicki, its vice president of sales and marketing, Jess Jankowski, its then-acting chief financial officer and Gina Kritchevsky, its then-current chief technology officer were liable under the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for making supposedly fraudulent material misstatements and omissions of fact in connection with the Company's public disclosures concerning its relationship with Celox and the Company's purportedly improper booking, and later reversal, of $400,000 in revenue from a one-time sale to that customer treated as a bill and hold transaction. The amended complaint alleged the same class and sought the same relief as in plaintiff's initial complaint.

In November 2002, defendants answered the amended complaint, denying all wrongdoing. Following certain discovery, in June 2003, the Company decided to avoid protracted litigation and resulting defense costs by agreeing to settle all claims against all defendants for $2,500,000. Thereafter, the Court certified the class alleged in the amended complaint. In December 2003, the Court ordered final approval of the settlement and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. The settlement did not admit liability by any party. In January 2005, the Court ordered distribution of the net settlement funds to the plaintiff class. Because the settlement was funded by the Company's directors and officers liability insurance, the settlement has not had a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations.

PULITZER INC.: DE Court Orders Securities Lawsuits Consolidated---------------------------------------------------------------The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in New Castle County ordered consolidated two shareholder class actions filed against Pulitzer, Inc. and the members of its board of directors, under the caption, "In re Pulitzer Inc. ShareholdersLitigation, Civil Action No. 1063-N."

On January 31, 2005, Todd M. Veeck, an alleged owner of common stock of the Company, filed a lawsuit in The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in New Castle County. The Veeck complaint purports to be a class action brought on behalf of all stockholders other than the defendants, and it asserts that the announced sale of the Company to Lee Enterprises, Inc. should be preliminarily and permanently enjoined because the agreed-upon consideration is unfair and does not maximize stockholder value. The Veeck complaint also seeks monetary damages.

On February 2, 2005, James Fern, an alleged owner of the Company's common stock, filed a lawsuit in The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in New Castle County against the Company and members of its board of directors making essentially the same allegations and seeking essentially the same relief as the Veeck complaint.

The Company has determined to pay the attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in defending the members of its board of directors in these or related legal actions, and each member of the board of directors has undertaken and agreed to repay his or her share of such fees and other expenses if it shall be ultimately determined that he or she is not entitled to be indemnified by the Company.

QUICKLOGIC CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal NY Lawsuit Dismissal--------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York's dismissal of the consolidated securities class action filed against Tower Semiconductor Ltd., several of its directors and several of its investors including QuickLogic Corporation. The Company was named solely as an alleged control person.

On August 19, 2004, the court dismissed the claims against all defendants, including the Company, with prejudice. On September 29, 2004, one of the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the judgment.

SCHERING-PLOUGH: FTC Seeks Rehearing For K-Dur Antitrust Lawsuit----------------------------------------------------------------The Federal Trade Commission filed a petition with the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Atlanta, Georgia, requesting that the Court vacate its March 8, 2005 decision in the matter of "FTC v. Schering-Plough Corporation, No. 04-10688," and re-hear the case en banc.

In April 2001, the FTC filed an administrative complaint against Schering-Plough Corporation, Upsher Smith Laboratories and American Home Products (AHP) alleging that they had entered into anticompetitive agreements aimed at keeping a low-cost generic version of K-Dur 20 potassium chloride supplement off the U.S. market. AHP settled with the Commission in April 2002. In July 2002, an administrative law judge issued an initial decision dismissing the FTC's complaint. The staff appealed this initial decision to the full Commission, which ruled in its favor in December 2003. Schering and Upsher then appealed the case to the Eleventh Circuit, which issued a decision by a three-judge panel reversing the Commission's ruling and dismissing the charges against the companies.

The FTC's Bureau of Competition seeks to prevent business practices that restrain competition. The Bureau carries out its mission by investigating alleged law violations and, when appropriate, recommending that the Commission take formal enforcement action. To notify the Bureau concerning particular business practices, call or write the Office of Policy and Evaluation, Room 394, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W., Washington, DC 20580, Electronic Mail: antitrust@ftc.gov; Telephone (202) 326-3300. For more information on the laws that the Bureau enforces, the Commission has published "Promoting Competition, Protecting Consumers: A Plain English Guide to Antitrust Laws," which can be accessed at http://www.ftc.gov/bc/compguide/index.htm.

SINO BESTFOOD: Recalls Preserved Apples For Undeclared Sulfites---------------------------------------------------------------State Agriculture Commissioner Nathan L. Rudgers alerted consumers that Sino Bestfood, Inc., 7 Kosher Blvd., Suite 3B, Edison, New Jersey 08837 is recalling 12.35 oz. packages of preserved fruit (apple) because they may contain undeclared sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites may run the risk of serious or life-threatening reactions if they consume this product.

The recalled preserved fruit (apple), a product of China, comes in a 12.35 oz. plastic tray package. It was sold in metropolitan New Jersey and New York.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis by the Department's Food Laboratory personnel revealed the presence of sulfites in product packages which did not declare sulfites on the label. The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.

No illnesses have been reported to date to this Department in connection with the problem.

Consumers who have purchased preserved fruit (apple) should return it to the place of purchase.

STRATOS INTERNATIONAL: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Pact ----------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement for the consolidated securities class action filed against Stratos International, Inc. (formerly Stratos Lightwave, Inc. and certain of its directors and executive officers.

Several suits were initially filed. The first of these lawsuits, filed on July 25, 2001, is captioned "Kucera v. Stratos Lightwave, Inc. et.al. No. 01 CV 6821." Three other similar lawsuits have also been filed against the Company and certain of its directors and executive officers. The complaints also name as defendants the underwriters for the Company's initial public offering.

The complaints are substantially identical to numerous other complaints filed against other companies that went public during the time of the Company's IPO. The complaints generally allege, among other things, that the registration statement and prospectus from the Company's June 26, 2000 initial public offering failed to disclose certain alleged actions by the underwriters for the offering. The complaints charge the Company and several of its directors and executive officers with violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and/or Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) to the Security Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The complaints also allege claims solely against the underwriting defendants under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

In 2003, the Company agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding, which reflects a settlement of these class actions as between the purported class action plaintiffs, the Company and the defendant officers and directors, and its liability insurer. Under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, its liability insurers will pay certain sums to the plaintiffs, with the amount dependent upon the plaintiffs' recovery from the underwriters in the IPO class actions as a whole. The plaintiffs will dismiss with prejudice their claims against the Company and its officers and directors, and the Company will assign to the plaintiffs certain claims that it may have against the underwriters. The plaintiffs have filed with the court a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, which, if granted, will lead to the mailing of class-wide notices of the settlement and a hearing date for approval of the settlement. The issuers filed a statement joining in the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The underwriter defendants opposed the motion. On February 15, 2005, the Court issued its ruling granting the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement with the issuers, pending certain changes to the bar order to be included as part of the settlement and to the notice to the class. The settlement still remains subject to final approval by the Court after notice of the settlement is sent to the class and the class members and other parties have an opportunity to have their objections, if any, to the settlement heard at a final fairness hearing.

The suit is styled "In Re Stratos Lightwave, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01 Civ. 6821 (Sas) (Ro)," filed in relation to "IN re IPO Securities Litigation, 21-MC-92 (Sas)," in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

THAXTON GROUP: Investors Seek Certification For Fraud Lawsuit-------------------------------------------------------------Investors who have initiated a lawsuit against the Thaxton Group over the company's bankruptcy asked a federal judge to give their suit class action status.

Bankruptcy court documents show that a subsidiary of the Lancaster-based company, which offered high-interest loans and insurance products to people with poor credit histories, owes more than $120 million to about 3,800 people who invested in its subordinated note program. The company, which filed for bankruptcy in October, discontinued the program last fall at the request of the attorney general's office.

According to Mark Parry, whose law firm represents the unsecured creditors in bankruptcy court, about $100 million has been recovered from the sale of Thaxton's assets, and the planned sale of another Thaxton subsidiary Southern Management Co. was expected to bring another $60 million to $70 million.

The losses from the investors represented the largest portion of Thaxton's $242 million total losses, according to bankruptcy court documents.

Gilbert Bagnell, a lawyer for the investors told AP that class-action status would save investors from hiring attorneys to pursue damages individually.

However, attorneys for Thaxton argued in court that the investors shouldn't get class-action status because they stand to get back all of their losses in Delaware bankruptcy court. The defendants also don't want to group together investors from different states that might have different information, attorney Jimmy Adams told AP.

Mr. Bagnell stated that the investors accuse Thaxton of using fraud to keep operating while the Company was millions of dollars in the red.

U.S. District Judge G. Ross Anderson Jr. plans to make a ruling on the case in about two weeks.

UNITED STATES: FTC Urges TX Real Estate Body To Review New Rules----------------------------------------------------------------The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) have issued a letter urging the state-created Texas Real Estate Commission to reject a proposed regulation that would change current rules by imposing new restrictions on the ability of Texas real estate professionals to offer flexibility in brokerage services.

The agencies expressed concern that the proposed regulation would not only cause Texas consumers to pay more for real estate services, but also would reduce consumer choice by restricting the ability of real estate brokers to provide services tailored to customer needs. Currently, Texas real estate brokers can offer the level of service that a customer wants and needs. If the Commission accepts the proposed regulation, customers will be forced to purchase additional services that they may not want or need.

"The Commission is urging the Texas Real Estate Commission to reject the proposed rule, which would restrict the ability of limited-service real estate brokers to respond to the demands of Texas consumers," said FTC Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras. "The likely result would be higher prices and fewer options for the state's consumers, with no offsetting benefits."

"Limited-service brokers are growing rapidly in Texas and across the country because they provide greater choice and can save consumers thousands of dollars on a single home sale," said R. Hewitt Pate, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division. "The proposed regulation would restrict the beneficial competition created by these limited-service brokers, and the Texas Real Estate Commission should reject it."

In Texas, real estate services are offered by limited-service brokers and full-service brokers who compete against one another. Full-service brokers charge consumers a single price for a bundle of individual real estate services and limited-service brokers offer consumers the option to pick and choose from a menu of different real estate services according to each respective consumer's individual needs. For example, a seller can decide just to purchase multi-list services from a broker and to represent himself or herself in negotiating with buyers.

Under the proposed new regulation, limited-service brokers would be required to bundle together certain of their service offerings into a mandatory package and would no longer be able to offer services separately. In this example, the seller would be required by the proposed regulation to purchase representation and negotiation services from the broker in addition to the multi-list service. As a result, customers would have fewer choices and pay more for their real estate needs if the regulation is passed.

The Commission vote authorizing the comments to the Texas Real Estate Commission was 5-0. For more information visit the DOJ's Web site: http://www.usdoj.gov/atror the FTC's Web site: http://www.ftc.gov. For more information on the letter at the DOJ, contact John R. Read, Chief of Litigation III section, at 202-307-0468. For more information on the letter at the FTC contact James Cooper, Attorney Advisor of the FTC Office of Policy Planning, at 202-326-3367. Paper copies of the letter are also available from the Justice Department's Antitrust Documents Group and the FTC's Consumer Response Center. The Justice Department's Antitrust Documents Group can be contacted by telephone at: 202-514-2481, fax: 202-514-3763, or e-mail: atrdoc.grp@usdoj.gov. The FTC's Consumer Response Center can be contacted at Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20580. Call toll-free: 1-877-FTC-HELP.

In June 2003, seven purported class actions were filed against the Company, Ribapharm and certain directors and officers of Ribapharm. They were later consolidated in one action, styled "In re Ribapharm Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 20337." The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the Company breached its fiduciary duties as a controlling stockholder of Ribapharm in connection with its tender offer for the shares of Ribapharm it did not already own. On August 4, 2003, the Company and the plaintiffs reached an agreement in principle to settle these lawsuits for a nominal amount.

In June 2003, a purported class action on behalf of certain stockholders of Ribapharm was filed against the Company in theDelaware Court of Chancery seeking a declaration that the shareholders rights plan is valid and enforceable. The Company and the plaintiffs reached an agreement in principle to settle this lawsuit which will be completed in combination with the settlement "In re Ribapharm Inc. Shareholders Litigation,Consol. C.A. No. 20337."

In June 2003, a purported class action was filed in the SuperiorCourt of Orange County, California, against the Company, Ribapharm and certain of Ribapharm's officers and directors asserting the same claims, on behalf of the same class of plaintiffs and against the same defendants as in the seven lawsuits filed in Delaware that are described above. The settlement of the Delaware tender offer litigation has been designed to release the claims brought in this lawsuit, although the decision as to the effect of that release will be subject to the discretion of the California court.

At a hearing held on December 2, 2004, the Delaware Court entered an order approving the settlement and awarded plaintiffs' counsel $375,000 in fees and expenses. Pursuant to the terms of the Delaware settlement, on January 18, 2005, the plaintiff in the California action filed a notice of request for voluntary dismissal of the case, seeking to dismiss the case with prejudice. On January 20, 2005, the California court entered an order dismissing the California action with prejudice. On February 28, 2005, after receiving no objections to the settlement agreement and no opt-outs by class members, the court gave final approval to the settlement and entered an order and judgment dismissing the action with prejudice.

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Lawsuit Dismissal---------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the Central District of California's dismissal of the consolidated securities class action filed against Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain of its current and former executive officers.

Since July 25, 2002, multiple class actions have been filed against the Company and some of its current and former executive officers alleging that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and misleading financial results to the market during different class periods ranging from May 3, 2001 to July 10, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company's stock. The lawsuits generally claim that the Company issued false and misleading statements regarding its earnings prospects and sales figures (based upon "channel stuffing" allegations), its operations in Russia, the marketing of Efudex, and the earnings and sales of its Photonics division. The plaintiffs generally seek to recover compensatory damages, including interest.

On June 24, 2004, the court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint as to the channel stuffing claim. The plaintiffs then stipulated to a dismissal of all the claims against the Company. The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit seeking review of the dismissal of the claims against the Company. The plaintiffs filed their opening brief in the Ninth Circuit on February 7, 2005. Although a schedule for deciding the appeal has not yet been set by the court, the Company expects a ruling on this matter by late fall 2005.

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: CA Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement----------------------------------------------------------------The California Superior Court for Orange County granted preliminary approval to the settlement of a bondholder class action filed against Valeant Pharmaceuticals International and some of its current and former directors and former executive officers.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making false and misleadingstatements in connection with an offering of 6 Convertible Subordinated Notes due 2008 in November 2001, thereby artificially inflating the market price of the Notes. Theplaintiffs generally sought to recover compensatory damages, including interest.

On December 20, 2004, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement under which the company will pay the plaintiffs $3,200,000.

Vishay has previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission an amended prospectus and exchange offer statement and related exchange offer materials. Siliconix stockholders should read the amended exchange offer statement and the other exchange offer materials because they contain important information.

Investors can obtain the amended exchange offer statement and other filed documents without charge from the web site of the SEC at http://www.sec.gov. Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., a Fortune 1,000 Company listed on the NYSE (VSH), is one of the world's largest manufacturers of discrete semiconductors (diodes, rectifiers, transistors, and optoelectronics) and selected ICs, and passive electronic components (resistors, capacitors, inductors, and transducers). It is headquartered in Malvern, Pennsylvania, and has operations in 17 countries employing over 25,000 people.

WAL-MART STORES: Court Hearing Continue For CO Overtime Lawsuit---------------------------------------------------------------A new round of federal court hearings with attorneys for both sides fighting over how to react to a key decision earlier this year began for a protracted lawsuit accusing Wal-Mart Stores Inc. of violating federal labor laws on overtime pay.

The hearings center around a 1995 lawsuit by three Colorado pharmacists, who claim that the Bentonville, Arkansas-based retailer improperly deprived them of overtime pay. Court documents revealed that by early 1997 that suit had grown to a class-action lawsuit covering about 900 pharmacists around the country, who claimed they were owed overtime pay and damages for times the company shifted their hours and salaries.

Before the case went to trial, U.S. District Judge Zita Weinshienk ruled in the pharmacists' favor in August 1999, pointing out that Wal-Mart's compensation system circumvented federal rules by classifying pharmacists as salaried employees ineligible for overtime pay.

However, as previously reported in the February 2, 2005 edition of the Class Action Reporter, a three-judge panel in the 10th Circuit in Denver overturned that ruling saying that the judge failed to consider evidence about Labor Department rulings that companies can adjust salaried employees' pay if economic conditions warrant, thus sending the case back to Judge Weinshienk and setting the case up for a lengthy trial barring a settlement.

Judge Weinshienk ruled in 1999 that Wal-Mart shorted hundreds of pharmacists by classifying them as salaried workers, even though the giant retailer treated pharmacists as hourly workers by cutting their shifts when business was slow and docking their pay as a result. Her ruling, a summary judgment in essence had attracted national attention, largely because it would have required Wal-Mart to pay back wages, including interest that could have exceeded $100 million.

The lead plaintiff attorneys, Gerald Bader and Frank Azar, estimated that the roughly 700 pharmacists covered in the class-action suit were each owed $50,000 to $70,000, not including penalties. After Wal-Mart appealed, a trial to argue the dollar amount of workers' losses and to determine whether Wal-Mart's violations of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act were willful was postponed.

In its ruling, the appeals court wrote that "The plaintiffs have not established incontrovertibly that Wal-Mart changed salaries so often that its full-time pharmacists essentially were paid an hourly wage."

The appeals court reversal also applies to a second related class-action suit brought on behalf of hundreds of current and former Wal-Mart pharmacists, which accuses the retailer of a "sweatshop mentality" in which pharmacists were routinely required to work 12-hour days without lunch or rest breaks.

The appeals court, however, also ruled that if salary changes are made too frequently, it could be declared a "sham." In such cases, employees would have to be reclassified as hourly and eligible for overtime pay. The ruling ordered further work in the case to determine which pharmacists had been affected.

During the most recent hearing, Wal-Mart attorney Steven Merker told U.S. Magistrate Craig Shaffer that the company wants to introduce expert testimony about payroll records to determine Wal-Mart's potential liability. He contended that the appeals court's ruling would require a different analysis of the records than had been performed earlier.

Mr. Bader though argued that enough expert testimony had already been produced, and all that remains is to decide how many pharmacists had been affected by the "sham" salary system. He estimated that no more than 100 had been deprived of overtime pay because of the system.

Judge Shaffer, however sided with the defendants and thus ordered both sides to explain their positions on new expert testimony in writing within two weeks.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, against the company and certain key officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

BEARINGPOINT INC.: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in VA---------------------------------------------------------------The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock and other securities of BearingPoint, Inc. ("BearingPoint" or the "Company") (NYSE:BE), between August 14, 2003 and April 20, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period, thereby artificially inflating the price of BearingPoint securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

BEARINGPOINT INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in VA----------------------------------------------------------------The Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of BearingPoint, Inc. (NYSE:BE) between August 14, 2003 and April 20, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against defendant BearingPoint, Roderick C. McGeary, Randolph C. Blazer and Robert S. Falcone. The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410/986-0036 or by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.

BEARINGPOINT INC.: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in VA--------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. filed a lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of BearingPoint, Inc. (NYSE:BE) ("BearingPoint" or the "Company") between August 14, 2003 and April 20, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The Complaint charges BearingPoint and certain of its former officers and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Complaint alleges that defendants' financial reports and statements issued from August 14, 2003 through April 20, 2005 were false and misleading as they failed to disclose:

(1) that the Company had materially overstated its net income during the Class Period by approximately $250 - $400 million;

(2) that the Company had inflated its earnings by improperly accounting for charges relating to acquisitions;

(3) that the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); and

(4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of the Company.

On April 20, 2005, after the market closed, BearingPoint reported that the Company was going to restate its financial results for fiscal year 2003 and the first three quarters of 2004. The Company further disclosed the commencement of an informal investigation by the Division of Enforcement of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The next day, shares of the Company's stock fell by over 30% to close at $5.28, in extremely heaving trading.

BEARINGPOINT INC.: Lovell Stewart Lodges Securities Suit in VA-------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of all persons who purchased, converted, exchanged, or otherwise acquired the common stock of BearingPoint, Inc. ("BearingPoint" or the "Company") (NYSE: BE) between November 13, 2003 and April 20, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period") against defendants BearingPoint and certain officers and directors of the Company.

The action, Filippov v. BearingPoint, Inc. et al. is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, Docket No. 3:05-CV-305 (REP) and has been assigned to the Hon. Robert E. Payne, U.S. District Judge.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") thereunder, thereby artificially inflating the price of BearingPoint securities. Throughout the Class Period, as alleged in the Complaint, defendants issued numerous statements which described the Company's statements on its financial conditions. The Complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

(1) that the Company's materially overstated its net income for the first three quarters of 2004 and financial periods prior to 2004;

(2) that the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

(3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of the Company; and

(4) that as a result, the value of the Company's net income and financial results were materially overstate at all relevant times.

On April 20, 2005, the Company filed a current report on a Form 8-K with the SEC. The Company announced that the financial statements previous issued should not be relied upon because of errors in those financial statements. Those previous issued reports include

(i) Form 10-Q's for each of the first three quarters of Fiscal Year 2004;

(ii) Form 10-K for the six month transition period ended December 31, 2003; and

(iii) Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003.

In addition, the Company revealed in the current report that on April 13, 2005 it received a letter from the Division of Enforcement of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC staff") advising the Company that it was conducting an informal investigation concerning the Company's internal control deficiencies and prior period adjustments.

The Company also stated in the current report: During the fourth quarter of the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 ("FY04"), BearingPoint, Inc. determined that a triggering event had occurred, which caused the Company to perform a goodwill impairment test. The triggering event resulted from a combination of various factors, including downgrades in the Company's credit rating in December 2004, significant changes in senior management and underperforming foreign legal entities. As a result of an initial impairment analysis, on March 17, 2005 the Company determined that a material, non-cash charge will be taken during the fourth quarter of FY04 as a result of the impairment of its goodwill with respect to the operations in its Europe, the Middle East and Africa ("EMEA") segment. The Company currently estimates that the amount of the impairment charge will be $250 million to $400 million.

For more details, contact Christopher Lovell of Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP by Phone: 212-608-1900 or by E-mail: classaction@lshllp.com.

BEARINGPOINT INC.: Roy Jacobs Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in VA----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Roy Jacobs & Associates initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of all purchasers who purchased BearingPoint, Inc. securities during the period August 14, 2003 to April 20, 2005 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against BearingPoint, Inc. ("BearingPoint" or "the Company") (NYSE:BE), its former Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and President Randolph C. Blazer, its former Chief Financial Officer Robert S. Falcone, and BearingPoint's outside auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP. The Complaint sets forth allegations that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by defrauding purchasers of BearingPoint securities during the Class Period, as described below.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing quarterly and yearly financial statements for BearingPoint which were materially false and misleading. These quarterly and yearly financial statements reported to shareholders how the Company had performed, as to earnings and other critical financial information. BearingPoint's financial statements were required to be prepared according to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, ("GAAP"), which are a set of accounting rules designed to require companies to report financial information in an accurate manner. The defendants represented that BearingPoint's financial statements were prepared applying these important principles. It is alleged in the Complaint that defendants violated these GAAP principles in preparing BearingPoint's financial statements, and BearingPoint's financial statements did not reflect the true financial condition of the Company.

On April 20, 2005, it was revealed that the Company's previously filed annual financial statements for 2003 and quarterly financial statements 2004 were materially false, should not be relied upon, and would have to be restated to accurately reflect the Company's true performance. It was also revealed that BearingPoint's prior earnings reports were false and that earnings would be materially reduced upon the restatement. It was also revealed that the Company would be forced to write-down between $250-$400 million in assets.

As a result of these revelations, which were completely unexpected, on April 21, 2005, the price of BearingPoint's shares dropped 40 percent in value on greatly elevated trading volume of 67 million shares. If you purchased BearingPoint securities during the Class Period, you may qualify to serve as Lead Plaintiff on behalf of the Class, which consists of all persons and entities who purchased BearingPoint securities from August 14, 2003 to April 20, 2005. All motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff must be filed with the Court no later than June 24, 2005.

For more details, contact Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. of Roy Jacobs & Associates by Phone: 888-884-4490 or by E-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com.

DORAL FINANCIAL: Baron & Budd Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. initiated class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Doral Financial Corporation (NYSE:DRL)("Doral" or the "Company") securities during the period between April 9, 2002 and April 18, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Doral Financial Corporation violated federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading information and that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the Complaint alleges:

(1) that the Company improperly valued Interest Only Strips ("IOs") which caused an overstatement of the Company's financial results by $400-$600 million in fiscal year 2004 alone;

(2) that the Company employed a static measure, instead of a forward curve measure, for valuation of its LIBOR sensitive IOs which resulted in misleading results that earnings were increasing and that Doral had a strong mortgage portfolio;

(3) that the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

(4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was unable to ascertain the true financial condition of the Company; and

(5) that as a result, the value of the Company's earnings and financial results were materially overstated at all relevant times.

On April 18, 2005, the Doral issued a press release revealing that the Company's annual and quarterly financial reports for 2000-2004 were materially false and misleading and would require restatement because of the Company's improper accounting methods employed for the IOs. Additionally, the Company also announced that its accounting practices are the subject of an informal SEC investigation.

The Company's stock has plummeted 66% from its January 18, 2005 closing price of $49.45 to its close on April 18, 2005 at $16.92. The stock closed at $15.09 on April 26, 2005.

DORAL FINANCIAL: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in NY--------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Doral Financial Corporation ("Doral" or the "Company") (NYSE: DRL), claiming that the financial services company issued false and misleading financial statements to the investing public.

The lawsuit seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased Doral common stock from May 15, 2000 through and including April 18, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5.

As part of its mortgage business, Doral generates fixed rate non- conforming mortgage loans, pools them and sells most of them on a floating rate basis. Upon sale, Doral capitalizes and records for accounting purposes a floating rate interest-only strip ("IO Strip"). Doral also recognizes gain on sale of mortgages as part of these transactions.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company's:

(1) IO Strip portfolio was materially overvalued;

(2) net income and net gain on mortgage loan sales were materially overstated;

(3) return on equity and return on capital were materially overstated; and

(4) reported net capital was materially overstated.

Doral also failed to disclose to investors that the Company's risk management, hedging strategies and internal controls were deficient and would not protect the value of Doral's IO Strip portfolio in a rising-rate environment, despite repeated reassurances to the contrary.

On April 19, 2005, Doral announced that it was restating its financial results for fiscal years 2000 through 2004. The restatements were being made to correct the accounting treatment for valuing its IO Strip portfolio. The restatements will result in a decrease in the fair value of the securities by $400 to $600 million as of December 31, 2004. The Company estimates it will eventually have to take a $290 million to $435 million charge for the required adjustments.

Since the disclosures about Doral's improper accounting began, its stock price has fallen almost 60% from $38.95 per share on March 15, 2005 to $16.15 per share on April 19, 2005.

On April 20, 2005, Doral further announced that the SEC was conducting an informal investigation regarding the Company's April 19, 2005 announcement about the restatements.

MBIA INC.: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY--------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, against MBIA Incorporated ("MBIA" or the "Company") (NYSE:MBI), on behalf of purchasers of MBIA publicly traded securities between August 5, 2003 and March 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that MBIA violated federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading information. On November 18, 2004, MBIA announced that it had received subpoenas from the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and the New York Attorney General's Office ("NYAG") requesting information with respect to loss mitigation insurance products developed, offered or sold to third parties from January 1, 1998 to the present. On March 8, 2005, MBIA announced that it would restate its financial statements for 1998 and subsequent years in order to correct the accounting treatment for two reinsurance agreements that MBIA entered into in 1998 with Converium Re (previously known as Zurich Reinsurance North America). Then on March 9, 2005, MBIA announced that it had received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York seeking information related to reinsurance agreements in connection with the loss it incurred in 1998 on bonds insured by MBIA that were issued by Allegheny Health, Education and Research Foundation ("AHERF"). Finally, on March 30, 2005, MBIA announced that it had received additional requests from the NYAG and SEC supplemental to the 2004 subpoenas. On this news, MBIA fell $4.36 per share, or 7.7% to close at $52.28 per share.

XYBERNAUT CORPORATION: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in NY---------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, on behalf of all securities purchasers of Xybernaut Corporation ("Xybernaut" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:XYBRE) between March 27, 2003 and April 8, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Xybernaut, Edward G. Newman, Steven A. Newman, M.D., and Thomas D. Davis with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company omitted or misrepresented material facts about its financial condition, business prospects, revenue expectations and internal controls during the Class Period.

On March 14, 2005, Xybernaut announced that it was seeking an extension of time within which to file its annual report with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). On March 31, 2005, after the close of trading, Xybernaut belatedly revealed that it was in dire financial and regulatory straits. The Company issued a press release that day, which stated, in part: "Xybernaut Corporation (NASDAQ:XYBR) announced today that the filing of its Form 10-K and other related reports for the year ended December 31, 2004, anticipated to occur today, will be further delayed, pending completion of an internal investigation undertaken by its Audit Committee." The press release stated that independent counsel had been engaged to assist in an internal investigation of, "among other things, concerns brought to the Audit Committee's attention relating to the internal control environment of the Company, the propriety of certain expenditures and the documentation of certain expenses of the Chairman and CEO of the Company, the Company's transparency and public disclosure process, the accuracy of certain public disclosures, management's conduct in response to the investigation, and the propriety of certain major transactions." The press release further stated that the Company had received a subpoena from the Northeast Regional Office of the SEC seeking "documents and other information relating to the sale of Company securities by any person identified as a selling shareholder in any Company registration statement or other public filing."

On this news, the Company's share price, which at one time had traded as high as $2.23 per share due to the Company's positive press releases and false and misleading representations during the Class Period, closed at $0.42 per share on March 31, 2005, and then dropped further by almost fifty percent (50%), to close at $0.24 per share on April 1, 2005.

On April 8, 2005, after the close of trading, Xybernaut announced in a press release that "investors and others should refrain from relying upon the Company's historical financial statements... for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2003, and interim quarterly reports for the quarters ended March 31, 2003, June 30, 2003, September 30, 2003, March 31, 2004, June 30, 2004 and September 30, 2004." On the heels of this shocking news, trading was again heavy and the Company's price per share fell to $0.13 per share.

XYBERNAUT CORPORATION: Sarraf Gentile Lodges Stock Lawsuit in DE----------------------------------------------------------------The Law Firm of Sarraf Gentile LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of those who acquired the securities of Xybernaut Corporation ("Xybernaut" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: XYBRE) from March 27, 2003 through April 8, 2005 (the "Class Period").

A case is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The action charges that the Company and certain officers and/or directors violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market during the Class Period, which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. The Company has announced in a press release that "investors and others should refrain from relying upon the Company's historical financial statements... for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2003, and interim quarterly reports for the quarters ended March 31, 2003, June 30, 2003, September 30, 2003, March 31, 2004, June 30, 2004 and September 30, 2004. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Sarraf Gentile LLP by Mail: 111 John Street, 8th Floor, New York, New York by Phone: 212/433-1312 or by E-mail: joseph@sarrafgentile.com.

*********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in eachWednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissionsvia e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuringnews on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of targetasbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-relatedliabilities.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.